Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

When any philosophy starts to be defined by a particular person (or group of people), then yes, this is exactly the sort of thing we should expect to happen. Political movements tend to become cultlike when they are less centered on ideas than the politicians who supposedly espouse them.

Oh well. I never cared much for Ron Paul anyhow.

__________________Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way. -Christopher Hitchens

Believe what you're told. There would be chaos if everyone thought for themselves. -Top Dog slogan

Remember that even if he owns it and it's in his name though, he still has nothing to do with it or anything it says.

__________________Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

I believe monarchy is a bankrupt institution. I would be ruled by a representative democracy.

Unfortunately, I find that I am ruled by a king. Very well, then: I will campaign tirelessly to replace the king with an elected government.

But meanwhile, charlatans operating under the governance of the king, are depriving me of what is rightfully mine--even the king's law should recognize this.

So, having no other recourse, I will appeal to the king to apply his own law, and give me the king's justice--such as it is--in this matter. Until the day that I am ruled by an elected government, I must make do as best I can, with the government I have.

I don't think Ron Paul disbelieves that the UN exists, nor that he disbelieves it exercises authority over some things. Rather, I think he believes that it should not exist, or at least should not have the authority it currently has. But until that day, he must appeal to the powers that be, not the powers he believes should be.

I believe monarchy is a bankrupt institution. I would be ruled by a representative democracy.

Unfortunately, I find that I am ruled by a king. Very well, then: I will campaign tirelessly to replace the king with an elected government.

But meanwhile, charlatans operating under the governance of the king, are depriving me of what is rightfully mine--even the king's law should recognize this.

So, having no other recourse, I will appeal to the king to apply his own law, and give me the king's justice--such as it is--in this matter. Until the day that I am ruled by an elected government, I must make do as best I can, with the government I have.

I don't think Ron Paul disbelieves that the UN exists, nor that he disbelieves it exercises authority over some things. Rather, I think he believes that it should not exist, or at least should not have the authority it currently has. But until that day, he must appeal to the powers that be, not the powers he believes should be.

All that aside, it's still pretty dickish behavior on his part.

This would make sense if the recourse his own ideology dictates to be the correct one were not available or would put him at a competitive disadvantage. That's not the case. It's also the case that he doesn't need to acquire the site name and resources at all, which would also be consistent with his ideology.

He's chosen of his own volition to take a course which is inconsistent with his political positions even though courses which are consistent are not only available, but competitive.

__________________Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

Do libertarians believe that they have intellectual property rights to their own names? If so, then this is not exactly inconsistent with his libertarian beliefs that he should "own" ronpaul.com.

However, appealing to the UN does not make any sense, especially if he doesn't believe it should exist. The "kings law" example given above would work, if the owners were not also Americans.

Considering that Ron Paul and the owners of ronpaul.com are both Americans, Ron Paul should be appealing to the U.S for his property rights, under American law. Not the UN, as this is not their jurisdiction.

__________________Lowpro: Food is also a little more important than guns; you can't eat a gun.

The UN angle is a side hahaha. theprestige's "king's law" example follows but the juxtaposition of Paul appealing to his hated UN creates interesting optics to say the least.

The bigger issue is what tyr_13 points out - the owners of ronpaul dotcom have been running that site for several years. There's no way that thru the course of not one but two presidential campaigns, as well as three congressional runs, he was unaware that it existed. The owners have invested their money, time and expertise building the domain into a valuable property and instead of adhering to the free market principles he espouses and negotiating a fair market value to purchase that property, he's gone whining to an international bureaucracy to confiscate it for him.

Hypocrite.

__________________I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do to their fellows, because it always coincides with their own desires.

In the sense that libertarians are all about their philosophy except for this bit, and that bit....

That's odd. I always thought Libertarianism was about "I'm gonna get as much of mine as the law allows, and **** you." Which makes both ronpaul.com and Paul excellent Libertarians, as well as showing a perfect example of why there are no libertopian governments right now; nobody can agree on which "you" is going to get ******.

ETA: Oh, also, WRT the article:

__________________Roguelike player? Info: http://sporkhack.com -- Public server: telnet://sporkhack.com
--The church is near but the road is icy; the bar is far away but I will walk carefully. -- old Russian proverb

That is awesome. The best thing that would happen now, would be that the Ronpaul.com get alienated by Ron Paul and turn the site into an anti-Ron Paul site. One can only hope.

Edit: LMAO, that just might happen after all. A comment wrote:

Quote:

Itís hard to take you serious when the right side of my screen is plastered with merchandise you are using Ron Paulís name to profit off.

The reply was:

Quote:

We were trying to achieve Ron Paulís dream of making a living while supporting the cause of liberty. We failed. Rest assured that the merchandise will be gone shortly not just from our site but also from our lives. We will tear our bumper stickers off our cars, we will burn our hoodies and t-shirts and we will smash our mugs into a thousand pieces.

__________________curi0usMany kids grow up in environments where if the worse thing they had to deal with was a pervy gym teacher wanting to **** them they would considere themselves to be privileged and living the good life.bigredhomophobes are not nearly as widespread or common as the oh-woe-are-the-poor-oppressed-gays whiners would have you believe.

Do libertarians believe that they have intellectual property rights to their own names? If so, then this is not exactly inconsistent with his libertarian beliefs that he should "own" ronpaul.com.

Look at the very first sentence of the article:

Quote:

In 2008, a group of Ron Paul supporters founded RonPaul.com...

In other words, the address was clearly available at a point (or multiple points) long after it would have been an obvious move by Ron Paul to register it for himself. In fact, given the amount of self promotion he's engaged in over the years - even before the WWW was a force - he and his people must have consciously decided not to register those addresses.

No, he let the people running the site promote him and his ideas at no cost to him or his campaign(s), and when he was no longer going to run for office again he decided to lay claim to the address and pay the people who've worked hard on it for him nothing for their trouble.

If I owned the address(es), I'd find some thus-far-anonymous schlub also named Ron Paul (there must be a few of them), and hand them over to him while giving Pseudolibertarian Ron Paul the finger.

ETA: I'd be very surprised if his request went anywhere considering that one of the offers made to him was beyond fair - giving him ronpaul.org free of charge.

__________________Never let anyone forget that the American people elected a rapist to be their president. President Rapist is the only name that should be used when referring to this evil narcissist.

No, he let the people running the site promote him and his ideas at no cost to him or his campaign(s), and when he was no longer going to run for office again he decided to lay claim to the address and pay the people who've worked hard on it for him nothing for their trouble.

Ron Paul being dishonest, having ulterior motives or using other people for his personal benefit?

Surely you jest!

__________________"The presidentís voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesnít exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy

We were trying to achieve Ron Paul’s dream of making a living while supporting the cause of liberty. We failed. Rest assured that the merchandise will be gone shortly not just from our site but also from our lives. We will tear our bumper stickers off our cars, we will burn our hoodies and t-shirts and we will smash our mugs into a thousand pieces.

Honestly, I think this is where they have a problem. If they are in fact turning a profit, he has a case (not before the UN, mind you, but he can sue in US court). If they can prove all their money covers operating expenses or to RP's campaign, he's got nothing.

Of course, RP is still a hypocrite. They offered to sell it to him and he also could have sued them in a US court. Instead, he went right to the UN.

Not directly relevant to this particular episode, but it's still my favorite Ron Paul-themed link:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

__________________"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

Not directly relevant to this particular episode, but it's still my favorite Ron Paul-themed link:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

"I'll ride the lightning! It happened to my kitty, and Elvis was part of it!"

Sounds like an authentic RP quote to me.

__________________"The presidentís voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesnít exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy